Are good with coloured pencils as well?

Ugh Ugh. Its Rhino to you.

Ouch, yes sir! I thought we had something special

Just messing with you mate

I never said that. Just highlighting your hypocrisy.

You really do struggle to understand the basic issues dont you Clint. Its been as perennial as MFC lowly finishes on the ladder.

Its not clear which will turnaround first. But I's back the Club.

I have explained elsewhere why Neeld has to go. Royal is implementing Neelds plan. And its been explained ad nauseam why its impossible to understand the impact of the assistant coaches on the whole outcome of a game.

And a mitigant on the midfield arrangements is that we are so bereft of talent there its appalling. Are you able to see that Clint?

At the end of the day what happens on the field is the responsibility and accountability of the main coach. Go figure

The only thing I will say in rhino's defence is while they are working with the same cattle, Royal wouldn't have much to do with list management and therefore the group of players he has to work with, whereas Neeld has heavily shaped our list over the last off season, and for the short term at least has considerably weakened our midfield. Although ultimately, neither have any runs on the board yet.

sack the sackers plus the sack which our sacks are located in.

Are good with coloured pencils as well?

we could replace Jack with Sack then we would have Sack Trengove, Sack Watts, Sack Fitspatrick, Sack Grimes and Sack Viney. Then all demomlanders could be happy.

I'd be moving Rawlings on first. The amount of goals we have leaked this year through defenders, particularly small defenders, not being goal-side of their opponents at stoppages beggars belief.

That was an aspect of defence that Wellman was dynamite on. We should be on the phone offering to triple his salary if he'd return next year.

I'm no Royal fan but he's not got much to work with. Although that said, two taggers & a lumbering ruckman at centre bounces is a nonsense. Leaves us with only one bloke trying to get the ball.

Both of the lumbering ruckmen who played today are far less-lumbering than the lumbering lug who usually does the job.

Actally Spencer even showed a bit of 'toe' today chasing and keeping up with mids.

You really do struggle to understand the basic issues dont you Clint. Its been as perennial as MFC lowly finishes on the ladder.

Its not clear which will turnaround first. But I's back the Club.

I have explained elsewhere why Neeld has to go. Royal is implementing Neelds plan. And its been explained ad nauseam why its impossible to understand the impact of the assistant coaches on the whole outcome of a game.

And a mitigant on the midfield arrangements is that we are so bereft of talent there its appalling. Are you able to see that Clint?

At the end of the day what happens on the field is the responsibility and accountability of the main coach. Go figure

A game plan doesn't dictate simple things like running hard, being goal side of opponents and body position in the centre ball ups. These are all simple things that are part of any game plan which Royal clearly can't communicate to the players.

I'm no Royal fan but he's not got much to work with. Although that said, two taggers & a lumbering ruckman at centre bounces is a nonsense. Leaves us with only one bloke trying to get the ball.

I couldn't understand this either. At one stage it was McKenzie shadowing Murphy and Dunn on Judd which left Jones the only player out of the three trying to get the pill. End result was 1 vs 3.

Understand that defence is a big factor in winning, but it's this over defensive mindset that really frustrates the hell out of me. I want to see some players trying to win the pill first and worry about defending their player later. We seem to be so fixated on stopping the opposition rather than beating them. That will never win us games.

Off topic a little, I listened to Matty Elliott make a speech once about figures who motivated him the most during his test days. Surprisingly with all the great leaders around he said that Mark Waugh was the most influential on him through his positivity. During a test vs South Africa, Donald & Pollock were all over him and mouthing off. Elliott walked down the pitch after getting struck and said, "Don't know what to do Junior, he's all over me." Waugh simply smiled, tapped a bit of turf down and said "Just take him on maaaate. Just take the [censored] on."

It's this attitude I want to see, not this fixation on defense.

I enjoy listening to Cameron Ling, seems switched on and would be respected from the get go. Get him on board please, anyway, anyhow

A game plan doesn't dictate simple things like running hard, being goal side of opponents and body position in the centre ball ups. These are all simple things that are part of any game plan which Royal clearly can't communicate to the players.

Neeld cant communicate that to anyone of them.

And how do you know that Royal was not following Neelds orders and implementating what Neeld told him? You clearly dont.

A further worry is that Clint likes it......

Both of the lumbering ruckmen who played today are far less-lumbering than the lumbering lug who usually does the job.

Actally Spencer even showed a bit of 'toe' today chasing and keeping up with mids.

Which ruckman is the most lumbering is not the issue. It's about how many of your four blokes at centre bounces are likely to effect a clearance. With 50% of your contingent intent only on stopping their direct opponent, your chances of gaining a centre bounce clearance are much diminished.

As a result of our midfield set-up, I would suspect Nate Jones leads the league in "tackles received"

My question is why did we get Royal back from stkilda and why did stkilda get rid of him. I wish we did go after Kirk but Freo got him. Id love for Lenny Hayes to retire and we get him. We need someone who is fresh out of the game.

Neeld cant communicate that to anyone of them.

And how do you know that Royal was not following Neelds orders and implementating what Neeld told him? You clearly dont.

A further worry is that Clint likes it......

How do you know he is?

I asked a question Einstein. I was not the one making the assessment of Royal. Keep up.

Sack the bloody lot of them! Put the money into a decent senior coach with the ultimate success to their name (Clarkson, Roos, Mathews), then the three underlining assistants must have some decent credentials and not be first year coaches (e.g. Garry Ayres, knows the AFL system and has done a blo*dy good job in the VFL without any AFL affiliate). Then the supporting coaches of the underlying assistants can be the quality past players new to coaching (like your Ling or Kirk as stated previously).

So in saying all this obviously there is the problem of getting that decent senior coach, but I think the basic plan is to rid the rookie coaches and get seasoned coaches with experience and decent credentials to fill the gaps. We can then have faith the the coaching staff is getting the job done. Also I don't mind Dave Misson and Craig in their current positions (on the basis the new coach is comfortable with that).

Neeld cant communicate that to anyone of them.

And how do you know that Royal was not following Neelds orders and implementating what Neeld told him? You clearly dont.

A further worry is that Clint likes it......

And I don't back Neeld. As I said, the simple things that we aren't doing are fundamentals of the game and I don't think Neeld is dull enough to be telling Royal to tell the players not to worry about running and spreading. Royal has to go, Neeld probably as well.

And I don't back Neeld. As I said, the simple things that we aren't doing are fundamentals of the game and I don't think Neeld is dull enough to be telling Royal to tell the players not to worry about running and spreading. Royal has to go, Neeld probably as well.

If Neeld goes then his assistants will too if not contracted.

Maybe someone should tell Neeld that the players should run and spread.

Thanks for the confirmation your assessment on Royal is not based on anything factual.

You really do struggle to understand the basic issues dont you Clint. Its been as perennial as MFC lowly finishes on the ladder.

Its not clear which will turnaround first. But I's back the Club.

I have explained elsewhere why Neeld has to go. Royal is implementing Neelds plan. And its been explained ad nauseam why its impossible to understand the impact of the assistant coaches on the whole outcome of a game.

And a mitigant on the midfield arrangements is that we are so bereft of talent there its appalling. Are you able to see that Clint?

At the end of the day what happens on the field is the responsibility and accountability of the main coach. Go figure

I fail to see how anyone here has the slightest clue how good or bad an assistant coach is except for Neeld. People can pass judgement on Neeld but seriously only the head coach is in a position to know if the assistant is doing what is asked of him. If our midfield is crap besides the obvious that our midfield is just crap, the head coach is responsible. Also at this stage following the sack the assistant coach logic, you would slice and dice the lot of them. To be even more illogical, we have more talent up back with Frawley and garland and we are giving up big scores so maybe Rawlings goes first ? Nope - judge the head coach and let him judge his assistants.

If Neeld goes then his assistants will too if not contracted.

Maybe someone should tell Neeld that the players should run and spread.

Thanks for the confirmation your assessment on Royal is not based on anything factual.

Your assessment is based on fact? The fact is that our midfield is terrible and aren't doing basic things. Royal is the midfield coach and as the midfield coach, is accountable for the performance of the midfield.

Royal might stay if Neeld goes, he was there before and didn't go when Bailey left.

Your assessment is based on fact? The fact is that our midfield is terrible and aren't doing basic things. Royal is the midfield coach and as the midfield coach, is accountable for the performance of the midfield.

Royal might stay if Neeld goes, he was there before and didn't go when Bailey left.

I am not the one making the allegations... you are and you dont have fact to back it up. You dont know the semantics between the role of Royal and Neelds instructions. I dont either. What I do know is the accountability of a senior coach its obvious.

He was contracted for a further year in 2012 when Bailey was sacked.

And Neeld accepted to keep him on into 2013. Looks like another strike for Neeld then.....

Peter Jackson will demand coaching changes in 2014. Royal is on his last legs.

I'd be moving Rawlings on first. The amount of goals we have leaked this year through defenders, particularly small defenders, not being goal-side of their opponents at stoppages beggars belief.

That was an aspect of defence that Wellman was dynamite on. We should be on the phone offering to triple his salary if he'd return next year.

I'm no Royal fan but he's not got much to work with. Although that said, two taggers & a lumbering ruckman at centre bounces is a nonsense. Leaves us with only one bloke trying to get the ball.

Once again, today I thought it was our best game defensively for a long, long time. Our midfield's defensive pressure and at times our forward pressure was rubbish, but one on one, our defenders did really well. What did let them down however was their horrid disposal by foot, which cost us a number of goals. But yes, Rawlings is no Wellman.

Spence has to develop some strength he gets pushed aside too easily.

Agreed, Robbie, but I couldn't fault his endeavour and work rate today though. Really good inclusion.

Royal Is a dud has got no idea been there with bailey and now neeld. saints where glad to see the back of him said he was useless (fact)

Right so its the gameplan and our midfielder arent fit!

And you can work out from seat 35F in the stands or in front of your bigscreen TV that the midfield coach is rubbish?

Do you have the Tattslotto numbers for next week?

Right. Is that a question? If so, yes. It was pretty crystal clear today that the midfielders aren't fit enough. Their work rate was up on last week's standards and the zone actually worked a lot better today, but too often the midfielders didn't run hard enough to get back and help out the defence. Further, everyone up the ground failed to present options for our defenders to kick at. Admittedly, the kicking out of the back half was atrocious.

It doesn't take a genius to work out that you can't leave opposition players unattended at stoppages. So yes, I have managed to figure out that our midfield coach is no good. He would have identified and then implemented some change in set ups over the last few weeks if he was capable. Neeld is in the same boat. It's taken until now to tighten up at stoppages though and we're still occasionally very loose. Royal, like Neeld, has to go. Simple.

I find it difficult to believe you cannot see the connection between wanting the senior coach sacked and the man responsible for our woeful midfield too.